Accounting for Ethnic Discrimination:A Discursive Study Among Minority and Majority Group Members

This article discusses the ways in which ethnic minority and majority group members account, in an interview context, for the existence of discrimination in Dutch society. Taking a discursive approach, the focus is on the strategies used to describe and explain discrimination. In both groups, certain members were found to use discursive strategies questioning the omnipresence of discrimination and problematizing its causes, whereas others employed devices that made discrimination appear factual, with the Dutch as its main agents. The use of these strategies was examined in relation to subject positions that the participants took up throughout the interview. It is concluded that the discursive strategies used can be understood in relation to the way speakers position themselves within particular discourses. Hence, similar discursive strategies function in different ways in different contexts, and both mainstream and discourse analytical studies on discrimination should not start from a simple majority-minority dichotomy

Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups:Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis

Following social identity theory, the author hypothesized that members of minority groups are more likely than majority group members to endorse multiculturalism more strongly and assimilationist thinking less strongly. In addition, the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that the more minority groups endorse the ideology of multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the more (or less) likely they will be to identify with their ethnic in-group and to show positive in-group evaluation. In contrast, the more majority group members endorse multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the less (or more) likely they are to identify with their ethnic group and to show negative out-group evaluation. Results from 4 studies (correlational and experimental) provide support for this hypothesis among Dutch and Turkish participants living in the Netherlands

Accounting for Ethnic Discrimination:A Discursive Study Among Minority and Majority Group Members

This article discusses the ways in which ethnic minority and majority group members account, in an interview context, for the existence of discrimination in Dutch society. Taking a discursive approach, the focus is on the strategies used to describe and explain discrimination. In both groups, certain members were found to use discursive strategies questioning the omnipresence of discrimination and problematizing its causes, whereas others employed devices that made discrimination appear factual, with the Dutch as its main agents. The use of these strategies was examined in relation to subject positions that the participants took up throughout the interview. It is concluded that the discursive strategies used can be understood in relation to the way speakers position themselves within particular discourses. Hence, similar discursive strategies function in different ways in different contexts, and both mainstream and discourse analytical studies on discrimination should not start from a simple majority-minority dichotomy

The evaluation of perpetrators and victims of peer victimization:an extended crossed-categorization approach

This research uses a crossed-categorization design for examining the perception of peer victimization. Using vignettes and an experimental design, perpetrator and victim evaluations of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch early adolescents were examined in terms of ethnic and gender similarities between (1) respondent and perpetrator, (2) respondent and victim, and (3) perpetrator and victim. When the perpetrator was a double-ingroup member of the respondent (same ethnicity and same gender), perpetrators were evaluated less negatively and victims less positively than when the perpetrator was a single (gender or ethnicity) or doubleoutgroup member. Further, when the victim was a double-ingroup member of the respondent, perpetrators were evaluated more negatively and victims more positively. No perpetrator–victim crossed-categorization effects were found for perpetrator and victim evaluations. Perceived norms of intervention in the classroom had the expected main effects but did not moderate the crossed-categorization effects. The usefulness of a crossed-categorization approach for examining the perception of negative peer behavior is discussed

Організація взаємодії слідчих та оперативних служб ОВС при розкритті й розслідуванні злочинів, пов’язаних із викраденням людей

Досліджується проблема організації взаємодії слідчих та оперативних служб при розкритті та розслідуванні злочинів, пов’язаних з викраденням людей.Исследуется проблема организации взаимодействия следователей и оперативных служб при раскрытии и расследовании преступлений, связанных с похищением людей.The problem of the organization of interoperability of inspectors and operative services at disclosing and investigation of the crimes connected with kidnapping

Preadolescents’ understanding and reasoning about asylum seeker peers and friendships

Preadolescents’ understanding and reasoning about asylum seeker peers and friendship